thomasoliber Capitaine Conan by B.Tavernier:Captaine Conan by B.Tavernier is certainly a great moie. The story takes place during the WW1 in the French's army. French's army go into European West and notably Romania, the Balkans, up to Russia. One of the officer , Captan Conan led a special force composed of murderes,criminals. This special force group commites sneak attacks and kills the foes by hand. In Budapest they are bored and commite criminal action.. When I saw this movie, I was fascineted by the way war scenes are filmed. Tavernier films "craggy" landscape in the Balkans to give the impression of a busy war. The special's effect as canon shoot, bombs add to this fabulous spectacle. On top of that, the director dwells on this dark period with dim scene. It participates in the tragic atmosphere and certainly in the total realism of this movie. It obviously an emergency in the French army and its hypocrisies. Its silly organisation critisized throught commandant Bouvier, a stupid man. Actors are exellent for instance P.Torreton as Captain Conan with his witty eloquence. This is a magnificient movie in spite of the lack of communication about the context which losts spectactors.Briefly by this movie Tavernier fullfills a successful career. This movie as La princesse de Montpensier occurs in the margins of history. It is why he declared " I want to film histor at man size"

n68188 This movie left me severely impressed. Most war films, particularly those intended to be viewed as a deep form of art tend to be much more shallow (Perhaps it has something to do with a lack of first hand military experience among film makers in the US.) Often the writers and directors are simply trying to support an anti war thesis by illustrating suffering, injustice and cruelty. But anyone can illustrate suffering, injustice and cruelty in a generic way and then squeeze it into an ill fitting war context. What impressed me about Bertrand's work is that he didn't do this. There were no shallow caricatures and he did not spoon feed the audience with anti war propaganda. Bertrand instead, tried to paint an accurate picture of some very complicated events and circumstances, and the equally complicated people who are trying to deal with them. The suffering, injustice and cruelty are there, but the audience must find these elements for themselves.

MartinHafer Historically speaking, this is a very interesting film, as very few films have dealt with what occurred between the Armistace in November 1918 and when the troops were ultimately brought home--some as late as 1920 or 1921. During this period, an undeclared and practically forgotten war raged off and on between soldiers from several nations and the Red Army along the Russian borders. Apparently, France, the United States, Germany and several other nations were worried that the Russian Revolution might spill into other nations and so troops were sent to eastern Europe. Not a whole lot was gained from this, though it did help to keep some of the problems from spreading somewhat. The problem is that while I am familiar about this period, I wonder just how many non-history teachers know about this. While the film does give us some information about this, it's a shame it wasn't more clear and exactly why the troops were sent into Bulgaria and Romania and who they were fighting wasn't really discussed. Perhaps the writers and director wanted this confusion in the film in order to mirror the confusion of the troops, as they seemed to have no idea why they were there either--but still, more information would have been nice.Despite the setting for the film being this undeclared war, the theme running through the film was the extreme difficulty some soldiers had adjusting to peace. Captain Conan and his group of irregulars were savage guerrilla fighters and could not adapt to a post-WWI world. This all came to a head when some of Conan's men were accused of committing crimes against the Romanians as well as when Conan was drug into resulting trials for these accused soldiers as well as a deserter. This is where the film became more interesting and I started to enjoy the film after a very slow start. Once again, the film was important because rarely is this transition to "normalcy" addressed in war films.So do I recommend the film? Well, it really depends on your tolerance for a slow film (in the beginning) as well as your ability to follow the script--after all, if you don't have at least a basic knowledge of this period, you might feel a bit lost.

rh86 This is in many ways a very good war film but not in the typical way. The film opens in the closing days of WW1 on the Eastern Front where Capitaine Conan (Philippe Torreton in a Cesar winning performance) leads a band of ruthless hand to hand fighters, equivalent to a modern special forces unit. They prove themselves far more effective than the regular army in the final defeat and are envied by many including a friend of Conan, Lt Norbet (Samuel Le Bihan, IIRC was nominated for a Cesar in this). But when the armistice is signed Conan and his men find themselves in limbo while Norbert, working for the Court Martials finds himself accusing the very men he admired for robbery and murder. This film does take a while to get going but it is worth it, giving time for the characters to develop and also establishing the monotony the soldiers find, going from combat to walking the streets of Bucharest. The film also deals with the beginnings of the Russian Civil War and the problem of soldiers fighting with no motivation. Tavernier's direction is superb and visually the film equals a number of classic war films while the performances help to give it an edge as it goes into territory that Hollywood war film's in particular have tended not to go into.